It's great to hear from you. InterNosCon was a wonderful experience and I am very late in sending a statement to be translated and posted on the forum.

That is a fine statement of a Goal for S/Lay w/Me. However, in order to preserve the structure of the rules, the person playing "I" in that adventure should make a Monster which is not the same as the monster mentioned in the Goal.

In other words, the Goal is in the voice of the adventurer, who is a fictional character and does not know the rules or rules-terms that create the fiction he or she is in. So the Goal cannot reference rules terms in any sort of way. We are forced to distinguish between the monster referenced in the goal (which the character knows about) and the Monster as a rules-item, as created by the "I" player and played in all the ways described in the text.

Making the Monster in the rules and the monster in the Goal statement two different things is the easiest solution and I suggest that as your starting point.

I hope this next part won't be too confusing. It is certainly possible for the "I" player to decide that the monster mentioned in the Goal is indeed the same as the Monster in rules terms. In that case, though, the "you" player is in a lot of trouble. He or she has just removed the possibility of achieving the Goal for free by winning the Match. If the Goal is to kill the Monster, and if the player wins the Match, then the Goal simply cannot be achieved in full except by paying for it with two good dice. By stating the Goal in a redundant way, he has permitted the other player to negate some of the rules that operate in his (the first player's) favor.

I was wondering... What about the Lover? Can (s)he be related to the Goal by the 'I' player?

Last evening Meme ('you') and I ('I') were playing; his Goal was to slay the leader of a sect, and I thought it would be fun to make her the Lover (the Monster was a big white tiger in the leader's room).I'm not sure if I played it right; mechanically, little (if any) changed, as the Lover is not necessarily accounted in the Good Dice list, and Meme indeed took care of her fate (he slew her...).He refused to embrace the Lover and tried to kill her in the same action, so he gained two dice, but that's in the rules too...He had the possibilty to choose from achieving the Goal (thus gain prestige and social power) or have the Lover on his side in the next adventure, but actually he couldn't have both - I think that's the only part of the rules that could be touched by the connection.

So, do you think it is ok to relate the Lover and the Goal in such a way?

@ Greyorm: we found this game really enjoyable also in chat playing, like Skype's or Msn. It's easier to find someone, that way (actually, there are like 350 kilometres between Meme and me)!

I'll have to read your post again to be absolutely sure, but at first reading, I think that you used the rules correctly.

My answer to your question is related to the original question of this thread in a key way: the Goal statement does not know who the Lover and Monster are. So it cannot automatically relate to either, no matter what it says.

One of the "dials" of the game concerns how the Lover, Monster, and Goal are related in plot and content terms, so it is legitimate to form relationships among them as long as you are talking about the fiction. One example is already explicitly part of the rules: you can combine the Lover and Monster into one person, and it changes nothing about the mechanics of the game. Try to preserve that logic if you want to combine the Goal with either the Monster or the Lover - and remember that this is something that is established through play, rather than dictated by the Goal statement.